电子咨询(E-consults)及其结果:系统综述

Varsha G. Vimalananda, J. Orlander, J. Orlander, M. Afable, M. Afable, B. G. Fincke, Amanda K. Solch, S. Rinne, Eun Ji Kim, Eun Ji Kim, S. Cutrona, Dylan D. Thomas, Judith L. Strymish, Judith L. Strymish, S. Simon, S. Simon
{"title":"电子咨询(E-consults)及其结果:系统综述","authors":"Varsha G. Vimalananda, J. Orlander, J. Orlander, M. Afable, M. Afable, B. G. Fincke, Amanda K. Solch, S. Rinne, Eun Ji Kim, Eun Ji Kim, S. Cutrona, Dylan D. Thomas, Judith L. Strymish, Judith L. Strymish, S. Simon, S. Simon","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocz185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nElectronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nWe searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nDespite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.","PeriodicalId":236137,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Varsha G. Vimalananda, J. Orlander, J. Orlander, M. Afable, M. Afable, B. G. Fincke, Amanda K. Solch, S. Rinne, Eun Ji Kim, Eun Ji Kim, S. Cutrona, Dylan D. Thomas, Judith L. Strymish, Judith L. Strymish, S. Simon, S. Simon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jamia/ocz185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nElectronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes.\\n\\n\\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\\nWe searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nWe found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nDespite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":236137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"55\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

摘要

目的电子会诊(e-consults)是临床医生与临床医生之间的沟通,可以避免面对面的专家访问。尽管有关结果的数据有限,但电子咨询项目已经在美国国内和国际上推广开来。我们对最近同行评议的关于电子咨询对可及性、成本、质量、患者和临床医生经验的影响的文献进行了系统回顾,并确定了现有研究在这些结果方面的差距。材料与方法我们检索了4个数据库,检索了2015年1月1日至2019年2月28日期间发表的关于一个或多个感兴趣结果的实证研究。两位研究者审阅了题目和摘要。一名研究者从每篇相关文章中提取信息,另一名研究者对其进行确认。我们对每个结果的证据强度采用GRADE标准。结果我们发现只有适度的经验证据表明电子咨询对重要结果的有效性。大多数研究都是观察性的,而且是在单一的卫生保健系统内进行的,缺乏全面的评估。对于那些已报道的结果,结果通常是积极的,临床医生经验的结果好坏参半。这些发现打消了人们的疑虑,但也引起了人们对发表偏倚的担忧。结论:尽管迄今为止文献中有利益相关者的热情和令人鼓舞的结果,但需要更严格的研究设计,适用于所有结果。政策制定者需要知道在什么情况下可以预期得到什么好处,这样他们才能确定适当的成功衡量标准,并确定如何实现这些标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review
OBJECTIVE Electronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS We found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias. CONCLUSION Despite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信